2000 (11) TMI 850 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) due to dealing clerk leaving the company.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeal dismissing their appeal due to a delay of one month and seventeen days in filing the appeal. They cited the reason that their dealing clerk had left the company, causing a lapse in keeping track of the appeal papers. The Commissioner did not accept this reason, referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which emphasized that negligence, deliberate or gross inaction, and lack of bona fides should not expose the opposing party to a time-barred appeal. The appellants filed an appeal along with a stay application for the recovery of the confirmed duty amount of Rs. 25,805.

Analysis:
The learned advocate contended that the delay should have been condoned as the issue on merits favored the appellants, citing a judgment of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the learned DR opposed the prayer, highlighting that no details about the dealing clerk leaving the company were provided, and no supporting affidavit or records were submitted. The DR argued that the case law cited by the advocate was not applicable, while the judgment referred to by the Commissioner was relevant to the present case.

Analysis:
Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the learned DR. The appellants' grounds were not substantiated by documents, as the name of the dealing clerk was not disclosed, and no records related to the absentee clerk were produced. It was also questioned how the concerned Manager was unaware of the need to file the appeal. The reasons provided were deemed unsatisfactory, and the application was considered cursory. The Commissioner upheld the dismissal based on the applicable judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing the lack of satisfactory reasons and the failure to argue merits before the Commissioner.

Analysis:
Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the delay, as there was no justification for condoning the delay. The stay application and the appeal were both dismissed as a result of the upheld decision.